The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, which imposes a legal obligation on the accused to explain the circumstances under which the deceased was found dead.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th April, 2018 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 44549/2015 arising out of FIR No. 89/2013 registered at Police Station (‘PS’) Khajuri Khas convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) and the order on sentence dated 17th April, 2018 whereby he was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.20,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for two years.

2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the Appellant (Accused No.1 – ‘A-1’) and his mother Leela (‘A-2’) were charged with having subjected Sunita (wife of A-1/the deceased) to cruelty on account of demand of dowry prior to the date of her death on the intervening night of 18th/19th February, 2013 thereby committing an offence under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. A-1 was separately charged for having murdered his wife by strangulation at the aforementioned date and time.

3. One of the key witnesses for the prosecution was Smt. Roshni (PW-1), mother of the deceased. Her initial statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’), who conducted the inquest proceedings, was recorded on 18th February 2013 by Mr. Rakesh Sharma, SDM (PW-4) and was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. In that statement, PW-1 mentioned in response to the specific questions put to her by PW-4 that the deceased and A-1 were married on 27th April, 2008 and that at the time of the marriage, no demand for dowry had been made. However, she stated that after the marriage, the in-laws of the deceased used to subject her to continuous harassment about the poor quality of the articles given to her by her parents at the time of marriage and about the genuineness of such articles. PW-1 specifically named A-2 and her daughter Poonam as harassing the deceased as a result of which she would often return home to her mother. She disclosed how she came to know of the death of her daughter only around at 7 am in the morning of 18th February, 2013 and she suspected A-1, A-2 and Poonam as having murdered the deceased.

4. In the trial Court PW-1 maintained what she had told the SDM as far as the essential particulars are concerned. The improvements that she made in her deposition in the trial Court were not material enough to discredit her testimony. For instance, she mentioned that information regarding death of the deceased was conveyed to PW-1 by the father-in-law of the deceased whereas she did not mention this in her statement to the SDM. Further, she deposed that a second call was given by A-1’s brother that “Sunita Soti ki Soti Reh Gayi” whereas she did not mention this before the SDM. She deposed that after Sunita had given birth to a daughter about four months before the death of the deceased, and that she and the child had been left by the accused at the house of PW-1. She and the child remained there till about a week before the incident, when she was taken back by the accused due to the occasion of marriage of Poonam, sister of A-1, when she returned to her matrimonial home.

5. At this stage it requires to be noticed that the post-mortem of the deceased, performed by Dr. Neha Gupta (PW-5), confirmed that it was a homicidal death. There were reddish blue contusions on the right side of the neck, left side of the neck, two on the left side of the face and one over the left side mastoid process behind the ear. On the neck there was a bruising of soft tissues and muscles of the neck. The cause of death was stated to be “asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling.” There was no cross-examination of PW-5 at all.

6. With the admitted position being that the deceased died a homicidal death, it became important for the accused to explain the circumstances under which she was found dead inside the house – the other occupants of which were A-1 and A-2. This legal obligati